1
MODELS OF CITY GOVERNMENT
In the development or revision of a City Charter, perhaps no decision is
more fundamental than the selection of a structure of city government.
This decision establishes the basic framework of the government, from the
elected positions that will govern it, to the power relationships and
responsibilities that will define city operations.
Structures for city governments generally fall into three main categories:
the mayor-council form, the council-manager form, and the commission
form. These three broad categories have evolved since the U.S. first
established its local government roots. Initially, a “weak” mayor-council
form was popular as a backlash to England’s monarchy and the desire to
share power among the people was the dominant theme. However, certain
weaknesses of that system were revealed over time and there was a
gradual shift to a stronger mayor-council form. The council-manager
form gained popularity in the late 19th and early 20th century as people
recognized the increasing technical nature of running local government
and desired more professionalized training and strong leadership to
manage its daily operations. Today, the strong mayor-council form and
the council-manager form are the two most common and recommended
structures for local governments.
The sections that follow explain some of the high points for each structure
and review the generally-accepted merits and drawbacks associated with
each. Information in these sections was drawn from two separate
resources, both listed on the last page in the bibliography.
Mayor-Council Form
The mayor-council form has several variations on the primary theme.
This form of government has, as the name implies, an elected mayor and
an elected city council. The variations are associated with what power is
given to the mayor or the council to lead the local government. Mayors
can have very little power; substantial power; or have separate, but
relatively shared power with the council. The mayor-council form is most
common with the largest cities or those with fewer than 5,000 people
(Ross & Levine, 2001).
Weak Mayor-Council Form
There are many structural elements that can weaken a mayor’s power to
administer a local government. Some of the more recognizable elements
that weaken a mayor’s role include:


A lack of power to appoint and dismiss personnel;
A lack of veto power;
2


Equal/shared power with other elected executive officials, council
appointees, and/or commissions; and
Lack of control over budget and the budget process.
As time evolved, this form of government developed a perception of
inadequacy for the task of governing increasingly technical cities.
Merits
The most commonly recognized benefit to this form of government is its
attempt to safeguard against potential abuses of power and political
patronage. As stated in the introduction, this form of government was a
direct response to the earliest experiences of those who emigrated from
England and wanted to leave the “monarchy” behind.
Drawbacks
Over time, the weaknesses of this system became more apparent. Some of
the weaknesses are:






The mayor lacks any real power to run the city;
There are multiple heads of the organization and this creates
multiple lines of authority and problems in coordination of
services;
Elected executive officials or commission members (many are
volunteers) often lack professional expertise to administer the
needs of local government;
A weak mayor creates blurred accountability, with too many
people “in-charge” creating confusion over who is responsible;
Constituents still blame the Mayor for things not in his/her control;
and
This form of government is viewed as a source of “machine
politics” as systems emerge “behind the scenes” in the absence of
clear authority.
Strong Mayor-Council Form
Contrary to the weak mayor model, a city structure that empowers the
mayor means that the individual has substantial control over the operations
of the local government. In direct contrast to the weak mayor model, the
strong mayor can:



Appoint and dismiss key personnel;
Veto council actions; and
Initiate the budget process and maintain substantial control over
the budget.
City councils can balance a strong mayor by retaining power over
appropriations, the purchasing process and contracting procedures, and
may also request audits and investigations of the executive department.
3
Additionally, some strong mayors are limited by a council that retains the
power to confirm appointments and/or limit the mayor’s ability to dismiss
personnel without approval. There are also examples of city councils that
retain the right to override executive vetoes. These exceptions are defined
more explicitly in the next section (Standard Mayor-Council).
Merits
Proponents of the strong mayor form suggest the following as significant
reasons to support the model:



The structure provides sufficient power to the mayor to run the
operations of the city;
The structure provides a single point of accountability; and
The structure offers opportunity to build professionalism through
mayoral appointment of qualified personnel.
Drawbacks
Opponents and students of the structure of local government also point out
that a strong mayor is not a panacea. A strong mayor may:


Exacerbate partisanship;
Undermine professionalism by (depending on the individual)
o Encouraging political patronage, and
o Making political appointments and dismissals if partisan
wishes are not followed.
There is also no assurance that the elected mayor has administrative
talents, which can also be a detriment to managing the daily operations of
a city.
Standard Mayor-Council Form
A hybrid of the weak/strong mayor variants, this form involves more
checks and balances while still promoting the strong leadership inherent in
the strong mayor form. It is the most common form of mayor-council
government among communities that choose a mayoral form of
government. Generally, this model is known for separated and shared
powers between the mayor and council. For example, in this form a
mayor may initiate the budget process, but the council would have
significant input into the final version. A mayor in this form may have
veto power, but the city council could override the veto. A mayor may
have responsibility for appointing and dismissing personnel, but the city
council may retain power to approve those decisions for key personnel.
Thus, while the mayor would largely be the administrative leader of the
city, the city council balances that role through oversight and
accountability in certain areas.
4
Merits
The benefits of this form of government are that it can take the best of the
strong and weak mayor forms of government and blend them while
simultaneously limiting the worst elements of each. It is generally
recognized as a good alternative and when the charter is developed
creatively, it offers healthy checks and balances between policy making
and administrative leadership.
Drawbacks
Whenever there are elected leaders, there is a potential for conflict. It is
difficult to entirely root out of any system the potential for elected leaders
to clash over issues and have ongoing power struggles. Thus, even in this
model, there are potential political pitfalls. In addition, this model does
not ensure that an elected mayor has the requisite training or professional
skill to lead an organization and hire or fire the right personnel.
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Model
The National Civic League has recognized that one solution to a lack of
professional training on the part of any potential mayor is to require the
mayor to appoint a professionally trained administrative officer. Similar
to an appointed council manager, a Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
serves as a professionally-trained staff person to oversee daily operations.
The position typically serves at the pleasure of the Mayor rather than the
council. However, there are examples of CAOs that serve at the pleasure
of the council, and other examples of CAOs that serve at the pleasure of
the mayor with council approval. In either case, the CAO carries out the
administrative duties on behalf of the Mayor.
Merits
The significant benefits of adding a CAO are that it professionalizes a
strong mayor model, and can provide continuity and institutional memory
for elected officials when the CAO is retained through election cycles.
Drawbacks
Similar to any other position that is appointed, there is potential for abuse
if the position is filled as political patronage. In addition, it is not
uncommon for there to be a high turnover rate for CAOs as people in these
roles often are looking to advance their careers by moving to bigger cities.
Council-Manager Form
(current City of Batavia)
The council-manager form is the most popular structure in the United
States among mid-sized cities (populations of 25,000 to 250,000). Under
this form, the city council appoints a professionally-trained manager who
5
is then given responsibility to run the city. The position essentially
becomes a non-elected CEO for the community. The division of labor
between the council and the manager is largely between “policy” and
“administration,” with the manager being almost exclusively responsible
for administration. A city manager typically appoints and dismisses
department heads and usually has responsibility for initiating the budget
process. While some cities with a council-manager form also have a
mayor, it is not required and in many cases the mayor is nothing more than
a ceremonial position (i.e. Weak Mayor). This form is familiar to the
Batavia community already, with the City currently operating under the
council-manager structure.
There is some debate about whether city managers can fully divest
themselves from a policy making role. While they must administer, they
also help initiate and/or shape policy debates simply by helping to manage
what issues the council deals with and what information the council has
during the debate. The modern council-manager form usually encourages
the council to set the mission of the city, while policy formation is a
function of both the council and the manager. Administration of the city is
almost exclusively the role of the manager, although the lines can blur at
times.
Under this structure, the city council can be chosen through a variety of
methods. The typical process involves mixing at-large and ward-based
voting in order to assure adequate representation.
Merits
The oft-stated benefits of this structure are that it provides:




Administrative expertise;
Clear lines of authority and accountability;
Professional standards that tend to trump partisan/parochial
concerns; and
Cooperation and partnerships rather than conflict.
Since a majority of the council must approve of the manager’s
appointment, there is a better chance that the council will work better with
the manager rather than an elected official. The combination of
cooperation and professional expertise makes for a time-tested structure
for city government.
Drawbacks
As with each of the models, there are some potential concerns.

City councils may not always choose the most qualified applicants.
o A variation of this is that councils may not get the most
qualified applicants depending on the size and/or reputation
of the community.
6



Sometimes a manager cannot be dismissed as easily as the model
assumes.
There is always potential for high turnover for city managers.
o Similarly, the city council turns over at regular intervals
and this results in potential changes to the manager
position.
Important to our democracy, some object to this structure by
saying that city managers are not as accountable/responsive to
citizens as it is not an elected position. Some contend that elected
positions hold members of government accountable to the needs of
citizens and foster better public engagement.
Commission Form
The commission form is rare. Today, only two-to-three percent of cities
nationwide use this structure of government. Only three cities in NYS still
operate with a commission form of government; the cities of
Mechanicville (pop. 5,196), Saratoga Springs (pop. 26,586), and Sherrill
(pop. 3,071). Mechanicville recently initiated a study to change their
charter citing problems with oversight/accountability and a lack of general
effectiveness with their current commission form of government.
In this form, the city council is actually a “commission” and the members
serve as administrative heads to each of the city departments. Usually
commission members are chosen at-large rather than from wards, and in a
non-partisan fashion. One commissioner is usually given the title of
mayor, but it is mostly symbolic.
Merits
Those who favor this structure for government contend that because power
is concentrated in one set of individuals, decisions can be made quicker
without all the “checks and balances” that typically delay action in the
other structures.
Drawbacks
Unfortunately, time has often proven this form of government does not
live up to its stated benefits. Rather than quicker decisions, there is more
often deadlock and inaction with department heads acting in the narrower
interest of their own department rather than the city government as a
whole. The model has limitations in other areas as well.

It often lacks effective leadership since leadership is shared at a
departmental level.
7

It encourages departmental parochialism – Budgets are often not
scrutinized between department head commissioners because that
only leads to retaliation among members.

In encouraging departmental parochialism, general administrative
reorganization is extremely difficult to achieve.

Voters rarely take administrative skills and background into
account when electing the commissioners.
SUMMARY
Based upon the experience of many cities over the last 100 years, the
commission form and weak mayor-council form of government have not
been widely used in the development of most modern cities. The technical
and professional needs of most cities require strong leadership, clear lines
of authority and accountability, and administrative expertise, none of
which are traits in these forms of government.
The Model City Charter has endorsed the council-manager form of
government since its first edition in 1915 (National Civic League, 2003).
However, in more recent editions, communities that did not want that form
have also been encouraged to adopt a strong-mayor form with clearly
delineated shared authority between the mayor and the council. The most
recent edition of the Model City Charter also suggests that the position of
Chief Administrative Officer be created for the community that chooses a
mayoral form of government.
8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
National Civic League. (2003). Model City Charter: Defining Good
Government in a New Millennium (8th Ed.). Denver, Colorado, USA:
National Civic League Press.
Ross, B. H., & Levine, M. A. (2001). Urban Politics: Power in
Metropolitan America (6th Ed.). Itasca, Illinois, USA: F.E. Peacock
Publishers, Inc.